Another Unfocused Entry
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 09:29AM Why not?
First item up: coaches' tenure and BCS appearances.
Ok, so this is a little late, but Georgia Sports Blog went to the trouble of determining the BCS conference coaches with the most tenure who have yet to make a BCS bowl game appearance. Take a look.
Arkansas' Houston Nutt is atop the list, having coached since 1998. Last year was his best chance but that kind of fell by the wayside. Nipping at his heels is Clemson's Tommy Bowden whose team had a late collapse of its own. A particular burr in this saddle is Cal's Jeff Tedford, tied for 7th longest wait. He's been coaching since 2002 and would have gone to a BCS game in 2004, but Mack Brown happened.
GSB's Paul Westerdawg also lists BCS appearances by conference teams. The Pac-10 leads the list, of course, with seven teams appearing in a BCS game. As noted above it should be eight but Texas two-stepped Cal out of the way in 2004. The Big 10 is tied with the Pac-10 but also has one more institution.
The ACC is particularly woeful with just four of its 12 institutions collecting BCS cash. The snag, of course, is that Miami is counted with the Big East, having last entered a BCS game before the whole ugly ACC seduction of several Big East powers.
***
Now, for a moment of Heisman talk. Heisman Pundit's released his "Winter Top 20", a list of the 20 players who will "at least get a whiff of legitimate consideration".
It's good to see West Virginia's Pat White crack the top ten at No. 6. He doesn't get enough credit for his contribution to the West Virginia offensive machine. HP's taken some flack for placing John David Booty at No. 1 but it's hard to argue with a winning, good-stat USC quarterback at the moment. It's a little like center field for the Yankees, what can you do about it?
***
And now, some entertainment from the FanHouse.
---Top 10 cheerleader videos (???). The Kelly Ripa one's comical.
---Domestic violence charges won't be filed against Cal's Marshawn Lynch.
---Auburn Tigers: 2004 National Champions? Yeh. Freakin'. Right. Patrick, this is why it's so easy to take jabs at Auburn on here.
---Hippies get in the way of Cal's new stadium. The bums lost, Lebowski! Except, this time they won. Dammit.
---Troy Smith exacts his revenge on Chris Leak. Not really.
BCS, Coaches, FanHouse, Heisman, Heisman Pundit, This and That
Reader Comments (58)
That 2004 Cal team beat only one ranked team.
Texas beat 5 ranked teams that year.
It wasn't that "Mack Brown happened." What happened was that voters actually looked at the resumes of each team, and saw what ended up proven correct by the bowls: Cal was clearly overrated most of the year and didn't deserve a BCS bowl.
I do.
Cal's bowl performance is irrelevant to what DID happen. Ohio State also got canned in its bowl game, but nobody could say on Dec. 3rd they shouldn't have been in the title game.
Same with Cal, at that same time in 2004 the flip happened where all of a sudden they were behind Texas was incredibly dubious.
Tedford said he wouldn't politick while Mack Brown was out digging for votes and the rest is history.
late
They've already held the "national championship" parade:
http://blutarsky.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/no-they-cant-take-that-away-from-him/
They ended up barely outlasting a pretty average Michigan team that year, mostly because of Young going nuts in the second half. That wasn't exactly the greatest Texas team around, either.
At the same time, Cal posted two Pac-10 shutouts (how often do you see that?!), almost beat USC on their home turf, and otherwise had a great team with a balanced running attack. That was a well qualified team.
We know the reasons Cal lost that game:
1)Disappointment in not playing in a BCS bowl.
2)Unfamiliarity with Texas Tech's offense. Cal could watch tape but they simply had never played anything like that before. They didn't have enough competent DB's do compete with Texas Tech the way someone like Alabama could just a few years later.
Texas Tech's conference foes have grown accustomed to playing them and can compensate at some level for facing that offense. It's much harder on a first-run like that. Think about how some teams struggle against defending the option. Sometimes you just can't prep for something like that and when your personnel are not deep enough you get smoked.
I think if the opponent had been anyone but Texas Tech, Cal probably survives in that game because they had a good enough team in spite of the disappointment, but there was just no answer for Texas Tech.
That's just how I see it.
Patrick, look at that photo in his entry. You told me Auburn didn't throw a championship parade, I provided the links showing you otherwise. There's yet another photo from the parade.
Or do you still believe Auburn didn't throw the parade? :o)
Just razzing ya a bit. I'll find something to pin on Alabama... eventually.
However, in re: Cal's performance, if you want to blame "dissapointment in being there" for that thrashing, there's really no way to dispute you, but this "unfamiliarity" idea is a bit of a stretch - a PAC-10 team wasn't prepared for a wide open passing offense? Are you kidding me? And it is not like one week preparation during the season (where your option analogy might come into play), it was bowl game for crying out loud - they weren't trying to conserve practice time for the upcoming rivalry game...Cal was outcoached and outplayed - motiviation was probably a factor, but beyond that I think you are grasping at straws.
SEC 9-3
PAC10 8-4
BIG10 7-7
BIGE 4-5
BIG12 4-7
ACC 2-7
ATLAR. 2-3
Look at the respective resumes of Texas and Cal in 2004 GOING INTO THE BOWLS (which is specifically what Mack Brown asked the media to do in the frequently replayed postgame interview).
Cal and Texas had identical records, both 10-1.
Compare schedule strength. By ColleyRankings (which was all I could find from that specific date in 2004), Texas's SOS was 15th. Cal's was 49th. Significant advantage in schedule strength to Texas.
Comparing their losses: Cal lost at #1 USC by 6, Texas lost at a neutral site to #2 Oklahoma. Going into the bowls, both USC and Oklahoma were earning votes for #1 (though USC earned more). Very slight advantage, Cal.
Now compare their wins: At the time the game was played, Texas played five ranked teams. going 4-1:
Lost 12-0 vs. #2 Oklahoma
Won 28-20 vs. #24 Missouri
Won 51-21 AT #24 Texas Tech
Won 56-35 vs. #19 Oklahoma State
Won 26-13 vs. #22 Texas A&M
Compare to Cal:
Lost 23-17 AT #1 USC
Won 27-0 vs. #21 Arizona State.
Basically, Texas had 4 wins against teams as good as Cal's best win. Large advantage to Texas.
How about Bowl opponents? Texas went 5-1 against bowl bound teams. Cal went 4-1. Slight edge to Texas.
What about nonconference games? Texas won all three - vs. Rice, North Texas and at Arkansas. Cal won all three, at Air Force, vs. New Mexico State, at Southern Miss. Southern Miss and North Texas actually ended up playing each other in a bowl (won by USM). The other 4 teams were all mediocre, though Arkansas probably had the most talent. Arkansas would've gone to a bowl if not for the loss to Texas. Air Force and NMSU probably wouldn't have gone to bowls if not for their losses to Cal. Push.
Two Pac-10 shutouts? OK, the ASU win looks good (as good as the 30 point win by Texas in Lubbock), but are you seriously relying on shutting out a 3-8 Arizona team as something deserving of praise? Texas beat 4 bowl teams by 21 or more points. Both teams had blowouts, both teams had good defensive games. No bonus points there.
So when you look at the full resume, before the bowl games, as you asked, Texas had a better season. They played a tougher schedule and beat more good teams. Those are the facts.
Now as for your other statements.
1) <i> We can use Texas' bad bowl performance against Wazzou the year before as shoddy justification just as easily as we can use Cal's bowl game. Texas' track record in bowl games showed just enough ability to survive against second tier Pac-10 teams, what was to suggest they were ready for a step up to a BCS game? </i>
No, we can't. That makes no logical sense at all. All I was doing was comparing Cal's 2004 season to Texas' 2004 season. 2003 was a different year, different players, different everything. I made no statement regarding Cal's previous years disqualifying them for a BCS bowl in 2004 (and I wouldn't). Cal's 2004 team played terrible in their bowl, which reflects poorly on their 2004 team. Texas's 2003 bowl performance has nothing to do with their 2004 team. I don't know what this is suggesting, or how it makes any sense. I try to compare apples to apples.
2) <i>They ended up barely outlasting a pretty average Michigan team that year, mostly because of Young going nuts in the second half. That wasn't exactly the greatest Texas team around, either.</i>
So now you do want to compare bowl games? OK. Here we go: Entering into the Bowl Games, one team played the #12/13 (depending on the poll) team and won. Another team played the #21/23 team and lost by two touchdowns. You line up the teams and say which was a better result. Knocking Texas's performance in the Rose Bowl doesn't make Cal's atrocious performance in the Holiday Bowl look better, but if you want to compare them, Texas (a) WON, (b) against a tougher opponent. Also, that "pretty average" Michigan team won the Big Ten and was a higher ranked team than anyone Cal played all year save USC (needless to say, was a better win than any Cal had). So by belittling Michigan, you're also making Cal look even worse in comparison. That is what you were trying to do, right?
3) <i>We know the reasons Cal lost that game... Disappointment in not playing in a BCS bowl.</i>
Here's the deal: If you're disappointed about a bowl selection, you go out like a man and prove everyone wrong. Period. When Oregon got passed over for the Rose Bowl for Nebraska, they went out and handled their business. Then they continue to have the argument that "they should've" and they can sound rational. But this year when Michigan went out and got beat by USC in the Rose Bowl, they didn't punk out and whine about how they shouldn't have been there anyway and they just weren't motivated enough. No. They took it like men. Michigan pundits and bloggers immediately backed down on their pre-BCS selections statements. You can't go out and take a crap in the bed like Cal did in that Holiday Bowl and continue to whine about "we should've". Period. If they were a good enough team to have played in a BCS bowl, they would've outclassed Texas Tech, regardless of how disappointed they might have been. It's a whiny 4-year old's argument. You handle your business, you can complain about how the system screwed you. You don't handle your business, you get no quarter. I don't understand how that's not a simple thing to understand. You crap the bed because of disappointment, you give up the right to complain.
Also, you did notice that Texas beat Texas Tech IN LUBBOCK by 30, while Cal lost in their home state by 14, right? You're really relying on "familiarity" for a 44 point swing between the two teams?
And look again at that Holiday Bowl game. Cal gave up 600 yards of offense. And scored to make it 14 points with just seconds remaining. The game wasn't even that close.
It's simple: Cal's resume before the bowl pairings wasn't as good as Texas's. The bowl performances affirmed that, extremely strongly. And complaining now about how Cal got screwed in selections rings extremely hollow.
Texas was better than Cal in 2005...hell texas tech was better than Cal in 2005 ....the poll voters got it right...the same way they compared michigan and florida this year and realized they had been wrong, they switched poll positions and just as michigan proved to be over rated this year...cal proved to be over-rated in 2005.
how is it that cal and michigan fans act liek they have a legitimate beef when there teams clearly tunk it up, yet auburn fans are labled as whiners when they actually beat more top ten teams than USC and Oklahoma combined in 2004
http://www.wildcatdaily.com/
You can see a link that says "Kansas State to play at Auburn", but the article requires a subscription. I'm sure more will be coming out about it in the next few days. Auburn still has one more OOC game to schedule, and I fear a I-AA opponent may be the pick.
So Jeff Tedford's phone doesn't work?
He can't lean on his buddies?
Get serious.
Cal didn't have the resume, and if Tedford didn't lobby for the job knowing that was the system presented him, then he's an idiot.
pwd
This says nothing concerning results; just resumes.
I honestly believe that, yes.
The Pac-10 is offense-happy, but there aren't any attacks even remotely like Texas Tech's in the Pac-10. There's nobody on the conference schedule to prepare them for something like that.
I think USC would have had trouble with it as well, in spite of their great defense that year. You just can't simulate something like that and unless you have waves of quality defensive backs to throw out or have faced it several times and can catch up to what it's doing, you end up looking like Cal.
The exercise isn't looking at resume's, it's about looking at who is best. Up until that last vote, the polls had shown Cal ahead of Texas. The voters for several weeks felt that way and then the sudden switch happened.
If we were to simply look purely at resume's, someone like Boise State would NEVER spend a moment in the top ten. But it's about more than that. Looking purely at resume's is to put the ball in Mack Brown's court and he can win that argument every time simply saying "I play in the Big 12, I play Oklahoma, bite me".
The difference with Cal and Oregon is that Oregon was still playing a BCS game. They got to play someone interesting like Colorado and get in the spotlight.
Cal was stuck playing in a game on like, December 26 outside the BCS. Beyond that, it wasn't like they were the last man out, they were IN heading into their last game and then got bumped. It was bogus.
EXCELLENT.
Too bad there's no return trip to Manhattan. Obviously Auburn didn't want any of that. Too bad.
They'd taken care of business and shouldn't have had to fight with the media to retain their ranking.
Pete Carroll didn't lobby in 2003 either. Some guys respect the system and trust it to deliver fair results. Does that make him an idiot? No. To him, all he's responsible for is how his team plays and I think Tedford's the same way. Guys like Brown and Meyer add lobbyist to their job titles which is fine but sometimes it ends up muddying the waters.
Michigan had already played No. 1 Ohio State. We'd seen that before and the results were clear who was the superior team.
Everything else beyond that (resumes, Urban Meyer's politicking, Gary Danielson, etc.) was superfluous because of the rematch factor AND the fact that Michigan wasn't a clearly superior team to Florida.
There was no choice to be made with Cal/Texas. The entire history of the polls is that a team in Cal's position, ranked ahead of another team heading into the last poll, having been ranked ahead of Texas and both having won their last games, would not have been jumped.
I'd thrash this mash of nonsense if LD hadn't done already done it so thoroughly.
CFR, the arguments you're making are all ridiculous. First of all, we SHOULD be talking about resume. Second, Texas WAS the better team - resume or straight up. Third, if you go back in time, the reason Mack was campaigning was because some ridiculous voters had Texas down at #12 on their ballots. Mack simply went on TV and said, "Um, could you please give us a closer look? That's NOT a fair assessment of our team." Fourth, acting as though Mack Brown is to be faulted for, you know, doing his job, is wrong-headed on many levels. If anything, you should be criticizing Tedford for 1) not making arguments on behalf of his team, and 2) laying an egg on national television in his team's chance to make a statement against a crappy team.
Cal was no more screwed out of the Rose Bowl in 2004 than Michigan was this year. You could SORT OF make a case back in 2004, before the bowl games were played, but you certainly can't make one with the added benefit of hindsight.
Yet, you're trying to. Why?
You get blasted as a Pac 10 homer for a reason, and the next time you do, let this serve as a reminder why so many folks roll their eyes when you write garbage like this.